Please, someone tell me I've been asleep for the last year and the election isn't between a big government conservative chimpanzee and a has never accomplished a goddamn thing in his political career zombie. Is this really the best we as Americans can do? Are we really that devoid of decent human beings that one of these two sacks of shit are really going to be president? And why are people acting like there is a real difference between the two? The only real difference is the letter beside their name and the bragging rights that come from you having the same letter.

Originally posted by kazhayashi81I just hate the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils"

Then don't. There's at least 55 declared candidates for President. Vote for one of them. Write in Mick Foley for all I care. But don't lament about the lack of good candidates and not do something about it...

Originally posted by kazhayashi81I just hate the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils"

Then don't. There's at least 55 declared candidates for President. Vote for one of them. Write in Mick Foley for all I care. But don't lament about the lack of good candidates and not do something about it...

(edited by Grimis on 2.11.04 0908)

A-freakin'-MEN.

Y'know, after reading this post again, I really like the thought of Mick Foley for Prez. Foley in '08, the campaign starts now! ;)

Originally posted by kazhayashi81I just hate the idea of voting for "the lesser of two evils"

Then don't. There's at least 55 declared candidates for President. Vote for one of them. Write in Mick Foley for all I care. But don't lament about the lack of good candidates and not do something about it...

(edited by Grimis on 2.11.04 0908)

I believe that not voting is just as valid of a statement of your disgust with the two parties as voting for a weirdo just because he's not in one of the two parties. Things in this country have become so polarized, and it hasn't improved the country at all.

Bush really is a economic conservative in name only, as he's spent tax money like a crackwhore on a binge, and even though I typically skew conservative/libertarian, I refuse to vote for him, because I disagree heavily with his domestic policies.

I've yet to see anyone have any decent excuse to vote for Kerry, except that he's not Bush. Ideas, plans, no, if he wins, we'll get his "great ideas". But to Kerry supporters, you don't need to know what he stands for, so long as he isn't Bush. "Whatever he said, I'm... against it in theory". That's all Kerry has going for him.

Badnarik was easily the worst Libertarian candidate that ran this year. Hell, I'd prefer Harry Browne for the 9 millionth time over him.

I love our system, overall, but I think the partisanship this time around is absolutely sickening.

if people think that high voter turn out will be a sign that our democracy is thriving they are wrong. people are deathly afraid of what the other parties candidate will do if they are elected, and that goes for both sides.

Having the right to vote also means having the right not to vote. The caveat of course is if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the result.Or a person could take Flea's idea and try to get some publicity: Be the first person to get on a raft going to Cuba. The cable networks are going to need some story to focus on post-election.

Originally posted by redsoxnationHaving the right to vote also means having the right not to vote. The caveat of course is if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the result.

Exactly!! I was incredibly happy this morning that I could tell a very annoying colleague of mine to shut up after she proudly proclaimed that she had never registered as a sign of protest. She didn't take it kindly when I less than politely informed her that her opinion was utterly irrelevant and that she had,in my opinion, forfeited her right to be taken seriously in any political discussion.

It's amazing how many people are willing to involve themselves in a form of protest that consists of sitting at home and watching television. There's two reasons not to vote - ignorance and apathy. Trying to spin either of them into some noble statement is ridiculous. Don't like Bush? Don't like Kerry? Then, like Grimis said, there's 55 other guys out there. If somehow none of those 57 suit your fancy, write someone else's name in.

Well, to be fair, I do think that its everybody's responsibility to vote. However if you choose not to, you still retain your freedom of speech and should be able to complain about your elected officials, whether you helped elect them or not.

But hey, all I know is I voted early this morning (I was the 39th person to cast a ballot) and have basically been afraid to even watch the news, for fear of how all of this is going to play out in the courts (eventually).

Originally posted by cfgbIf you're not going to vote, please at least show up to turn down your ballot in person.

I came very close to doing so, before deciding that it just wasn't worth it.

Originally posted by redsoxnationHaving the right to vote also means having the right not to vote. The caveat of course is if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the result.

Seeing as how I'm not going to be responsible for voting for the person who fucks this country up more no matter who wins, I'd say I have far more of a right to complain than someone who voted for him.

Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardI hate people trying to spin apathy into nobility.

Boy, aren't we stereotyping today, but then again, I've seen your bullshit so I'm not really surprised... I'm not apathetic about anything. I very passionately believe that there isn't a single candidate worth my vote. Why should I have to settle for one of these idiots, or write in someone who doesn't want it?

Originally posted by The GoonThank you for that line. I have been arguing the importance of participating for so long now. That is a phrase I will be throwing at people.

I think something more important is having at least mediocre candidates instead of the god awful group we have now.

Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastardIt's amazing how many people are willing to involve themselves in a form of protest that consists of sitting at home and watching television. There's two reasons not to vote - ignorance and apathy. Trying to spin either of them into some noble statement is ridiculous. Don't like Bush? Don't like Kerry? Then, like Grimis said, there's 55 other guys out there. If somehow none of those 57 suit your fancy, write someone else's name in.

I hate people trying to spin apathy into nobility.

This is the new American way. Apathy. Everyone knows that it is easier to point fingers than accept responsibility or God forbid try to effect any sort of change.

Originally posted by kazhayashi81Boy, aren't we stereotyping today, but then again, I've seen your bullshit so I'm not really surprised... I'm not apathetic about anything. I very passionately believe that there isn't a single candidate worth my vote. Why should I have to settle for one of these idiots, or write in someone who doesn't want it?

Because evil triumphs when good men do nothing. I'm not singling out either candidate, but staying home with a thumb up the ass isn't how women got the right to vote, or how civil rights legislation came to be either.

I mean, for Christ's sake. You've got me, OlFuzzyBastard, evilwaldo, redsoxnation, The Goon, and other people who barely agree that the sun is out agreeing on this one. A protest vote for Michael Moore, Anne Coulter or HHH is better than no protest vote at all.

Originally posted by GrimisA protest vote for Michael Moore, Anne Coulter or HHH is better than no protest vote at all.

Many states - well, I know California for sure - throw away write-in votes that aren't for a previously registered write-in candidate so it's really the same thing. (I'm assuming that either that isn't the case in Maryland, or you didn't care that your vote wouldn't count when you wrote in yourself)

Originally posted by GrimisThere's at least 55 declared candidates for President. Vote for one of them. Write in Mick Foley for all I care. But don't lament about the lack of good candidates and not do something about it...

As much as it personally pains me to say it, Grimis is right. (I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.)

There has to be at least ONE of the 55 candidates who are worth voting for. At LEAST one. Even if it's just a choice between the "evil of two lessers" as it is today.

It's just too frickin' important to do nothing.

And hell, if you want to be dramatic about the whole thing - people die and have died to have the right to vote. Minorities and women fought for the right to vote. Even if it's "None of the above", don't just sit on your ass.